When Apple announced the iPhone 4S, the company certainly talked up the improvements made to the smartphone's integrated camera hardware. With 8 megapixels of resolution, a redesigned lens, and enhancements to its software, it certainly meets or exceeds the needs of most casual shooters.

Still, we here at Ars have received plenty of questions to the effect of, "can the iPhone 4S replace a 'real' camera?" That's actually a hard question to answer, because individual needs vary widely. Would a professional photographer replace her trusty DSLR with an iPhone 4S? No. But, might a casual snap shooter replace a pocket camera with an iPhone 4S? It's pretty likely.

Making a decision to ditch your camera for a smartphone is always going to be a matter of personal preference and a trade-off between convenience versus quality. With that in mind, we set out with a stable of cameras to give as fair a comparison as possible. Along with an iPhone 4S, we also took sample shots with a 5MP iPhone 4, an 8MP Samsung Galaxy SII, an 8MP Canon 20D, and a 10MP Olympus XZ-1.

There are two things we did not do, however. For one, we didn't compare every generation of iPhone. Camera+ developer Lisa Bettany already put together a really thorough comparison already, and suffice to say if you have anything older than an iPhone 4, be prepared to be blown away with the results from an iPhone 4S. If you already have an iPhone 4, the improvements to image quality are a little more subtle. But as we noted in our iPhone 4S review, the speed of the camera hardware and software is significantly improved; this alone is a significant factor that improves usability.

A photo taken with each generation of iPhone, from the original 2MP fixed focus iPhone to the 8MP autofocus iPhone 4S.

The other thing we didn't do was compare the video capabilities of the iPhone 4S. We already found the iPhone 4's 720p recording ability to be sufficient for casual use, and at least one filmmaker managed to shoot an entire film using iPhone 4s. The iPhone 4S steps that up to 1080p resolution, and some curious filmmakers at Robino Films found that in static, well-lit scenes, it compares favorably to a Canon 5D mkII. Rolling shutter effects will be a problem, and lowlight shooting introduces some artifacts, but overall the hardware performs well shooting video.

iPhone 4S / Canon 5D mkII Side by Side Comparison

What we were interested in was evaluating the iPhone 4S as a still camera that could possibly replace a 'real' digital camera. To try and keep things as fair as possible, our Canon 20D was outfitted with a Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens was set to 22mm (a roughly 35mm equivalent) and left at f/4.5. Exposure was set automatically using aperture priority, just as most smartphones do. ISO was set manually (the 20D doesn't have auto ISO available in aperture priority mode) but was set to our best guess for the situation at hand.

Likewise, the Olympus was put into aperture priority mode, with its aperture set to f/2.5—similar to the smartphones we compared against. ISO was set automatically, and the lens was left all the way at the wide end—roughly 28mm focal length equivalent.

We took a series of subjects in a couple different lighting scenarios: flowers in outdoor lighting, a building at sunset, and some shots in very low indoor lighting at home and at a bar. We'll show you our comparison shots, noting the performance in each case as well as considering what each device was like to carry, pull out, set up, and take each shot.

Outdoors

We took our band of cameras outside during a brisk autumn afternoon with a clear blue sky to capture some images in bright light. First up is a series of photos taken of a flower arrangement.

Here you can see the cameras capturing lots of color. Directly comparing the iPhone 4S to the iPhone 4 in the first image, there are two important factors to notice about the improved camera: a greater dynamic range and a tendency to keep colors—especially reds—from over-saturating.

Apple claims to have improved white balance in the 4S, and as such, its images tend to be a little less cold in regular lighting; they show a little less yellow (as we'll see later) under indoor tungsten lighting compared to the iPhone 4. It's difficult to say for sure why these improvements couldn't be passed on to the iPhone 4 with software, but it's likely that the white balance improvements are at least partially due to the new 8MP sensor and its hybrid IR filter.

Our relatively high-end point-and-shoot, the Olympus XZ-1, over-exposed the image quite a bit. It's hard to say what tripped up its exposure system, but suffice it to say, having a more expensive "real" camera doesn't automatically guarantee better results. The XZ-1 has the benefit of offering a variety of manual controls, including ISO adjustments, exposure compensation, and manual exposure control that would let us dial in a better exposure if that's what we wanted.

The iPhone 4S, on the other hand, has no such control. Tapping around different areas of the viewfinder will bias the auto-exposure system for that particular part of the image, however, so there is a way to slightly override it. Still, we found that iPhone would generally nail the exposure about nine times out of ten without intervention.

At screen sizes, there really isn't much difference between the iPhone 4S, the Galaxy SII, and the Canon 20D. We note that the exposure and dynamic range of the Galaxy SII is more like the iPhone 4, while the Canon 20D's rendering is more like that of the iPhone 4S.

Looking closer at 100 percent crops of each image—pixel peepers rejoice!—the differences are still subtle, but the iPhone 4S and iPhone 4 are clearly noisier than the Olympus or the Canon. The Galaxy SII shows signs of aggressive noise reduction that leaves odd artifacts, though at screen sizes or in smaller prints, these won't likely be noticeable. Both the iPhone 4S and Canon 20D show a little blurriness, but given the high winds on that particular day, I attribute this to a bit of motion blur, as other details in the image are sharp.

I have to say the GS II also takes quite good pictures, dog picture was a tough one, simply because the dogs entire face was in the shadow, as opposed to the iphone pics (animals do move around)...

But overall I think for the casual shooter any modern smartphone tends to take VERY good photos and video... But must say the video portion is still no where what a real camera does - color saturation is just not there.

I think you ended up torpedoing the 20d in low light situations where you did not change the aperture. You leave it at a slow f/4.5, while the iPhone 4s was still at f/2.4, which is lets in more than twice as much light. On the couple of lower light shots you criticized (slightly) the 20d due to a bit of blur with the shutter speed being quite a bit slower (1/5 instead of 1/15) than the iPhone 4s. Also, you chose a camera that is very, very old.

Beyond that, it would have been very nice to add in a Micro 4/3 format camera, as some of them are quite small. There's even a fairly recent forum thread about some people using them as pocket cams (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1160958) vs a traditional dSLR. Since it's something that many people could pocket reasonably well, it'd be nice to throw that into the mix.

All that said, I agree, the iPhone 4s (camera phones in general as well) have come a very long way, and for casual shots they can do quite well. Especially with decent lighting!

not if you do anything with wildlife or difficult lighting. I'm not a pro by any stretch but the smart phone cameras just aren't up to what I do.

I think what the article is trying to say is, for most people going about their daily life, the iPhone 4s (and many other modern smartphones) have a pretty darn capable camera, and can replace a pocketable P&S for them.

It's a matter of the right tool for the job. And as the saying goes, the best camera is the one you actually have with you. If it's always in your pocket, it's always there.

The 20D is a pretty old camera given the progress in sensor tech. If you're comparing a brand-new phone camera, it seems only fair to use a vaguely contemporary DSLR. Something like a Nikon D7000, for example. That, or an equivalent Canon or whatever, will cheerfully deliver decent image quality at ISO 6400 and usable but grainy images up in the 10K range, well beyond what any small-sensor device can dream of.

not if you do anything with wildlife or difficult lighting. I'm not a pro by any stretch but the smart phone cameras just aren't up to what I do.

I Absolutely agree that anything that calls for a long lens or more resolution or more flexibility will require something other than an iPhone, or any smartphone for that matter. The point is that for a lot of what someone might use a "real" camera for, an iPhone 4S can absolutely suffice.

For me, I basically have the equivalent of an Olympus Stylus Epic embedded in my smartphone. As a longtime and avid photographer, that makes me quite happy.

As we said at the outset, not everyone's needs will be satisfied by a single focal length, wide angle lens snapshot camera. But anyone that might have used something like a Canon SureShot, the aforementioned Stylus Epic, Rollei 35, Polaroid, etc, the iPhone makes an excellent digital replacement that will, at almost all times, be in your pocket.

I think you ended up torpedoing the 20d in low light situations where you did not change the aperture. You leave it at a slow f/4.5, while the iPhone 4s was still at f/2.4, which is lets in more than twice as much light. On the couple of lower light shots you criticized (slightly) the 20d due to a bit of blur with the shutter speed being quite a bit slower (1/5 instead of 1/15) than the iPhone 4s. Also, you chose a camera that is very, very old.

I was thinking the same thing, and also noticed that the ISO speed for the 20D was almost always significantly higher than on the other cameras.

Done the way it was, the comparison to the 20D is just nonsensical. If I'm carrying my big bulky DSLR it's because I want to take the best photos possible. No silly stuff like setting it in AP mode and fixing the aperture to 4.5 for every shot. If I'm tinkering with the controls, I'm tinkering with them to get an effect, not because I'm speculating on how some other camera works. At the very least put it in full auto mode and let it do its own thing.

The 20D is a pretty old camera given the progress in sensor tech. If you're comparing a brand-new phone camera, it seems only fair to use a vaguely contemporary DSLR. Something like a Nikon D7000, for example. That, or an equivalent Canon or whatever, will cheerfully deliver decent image quality at ISO 6400 and usable but grainy images up in the 10K range, well beyond what any small-sensor device can dream of.

I'll grant you that, and that exact fact is mentioned in the article. But a 20D is what I happen to have, and someone actually requested that as a comparison back when the iPhone 4S was first announced.

I would have loved to have compared even more cameras, but I didn't have access to more equipment within a reasonable amount of time. I think that what we were able to examine, though, gives anyone thinking about ditching a dedicated compact camera the information to make an informed decision.

I think you ended up torpedoing the 20d in low light situations where you did not change the aperture. You leave it at a slow f/4.5, while the iPhone 4s was still at f/2.4, which is lets in more than twice as much light.

FWIW, the 10-22 EF-S has a maximum aperture of f/4.5 at 22mm. Most consumer zooms don't do much better than 3.5 and that's at the wide end. I suppose I could have rustled up an 18-55, I just don't personally have one. I considered using a 50/1.8, but there's no way I could have gotten framing anywhere close to the other cameras.

I think you ended up torpedoing the 20d in low light situations where you did not change the aperture. You leave it at a slow f/4.5, while the iPhone 4s was still at f/2.4, which is lets in more than twice as much light.

FWIW, the 10-22 EF-S has a maximum aperture of f/4.5 at 22mm. Most consumer zooms don't do much better than 3.5 and that's at the wide end. I suppose I could have rustled up an 18-55, I just don't personally have one. I considered using a 50/1.8, but there's no way I could have gotten framing anywhere close to the other cameras.

It does? Ah, ok, didn't realize that. I'm in the full frame world, so don't know as much about the EF-S glass. Fair enough then, although I'm sure someone would have a 24mm or similar lens somewhere in Orbital HQ they could have let you borrow that would have gotten you a wider aperture. Or take this as an opportunity to rent a piece of glass you might normally use, and charge it back to Ars

For my personal shots lately, I've become a huge fan of the bokeh that you get from the high aperture shots of lenses like the 50/1.8 or the 32/2.0. To my knowledge, this is just somethins

Also, my knowledge in this area is actually somewhat lacking. I didn't think you could compare F stops between different lenses directly. That is, to my layman eyes, an F/4.5 in my lenses is still a larger opening than the lens of the iphone. Is that not the case?

I understand that the 20D was all you had access to but that doesn't make it any less of a silly comparison. That's like wanting to compare the CPU/GPU performance of the iPhone 4S vs a 2004 Pentium 4. It doesn't really matter what the results are.

Ios say you should redo the test with a $600 T3 and the kit lens (18-55mm). Those results would be interesting.

Best camera's the one you have with you. I have a d40 and like 6 lenses but I also have an s95 for carrying around.

smart phone cameras are getting better and better and because of interconnectivity (the ability to tweet/facebook/whatever) your photos instantly appear on the web. Camera companies are going to lose and be relegated to the SLR market only if they don't wake up, but what can they do? Make phones? Make 3g SD cards like WiFi?

Aperture values correspond to the amount of light that falls on the sensor if i am not mistaken, so a smaller opening would be required for light to fall on a smaller sensor (though i could be wrong).

I know the 20D is an older slr but my rebel xt takes sharper images than that in a raw photo that has not been edited. There is no reason those images should be that blurry: is the af calibrated? Sensor clean? Lens clean? Just cant fathom an slr being that blurry, especially an slr before the great pixel density war that encompassed the 40D to 60D

Great, another iPhone puff piece! I know they generate mega hits, but come on Ars! Of course no one will leave their DSLR at home for serious photo taking, and yes the iPhone camera is in the top of three or so of phone cameras released to date. It's not even the best phone camera released, but worthy of a four page article to keep the hype/hit alive? Salut.

The 20D is a pretty old camera given the progress in sensor tech. If you're comparing a brand-new phone camera, it seems only fair to use a vaguely contemporary DSLR. Something like a Nikon D7000, for example. That, or an equivalent Canon or whatever, will cheerfully deliver decent image quality at ISO 6400 and usable but grainy images up in the 10K range, well beyond what any small-sensor device can dream of.

I'll grant you that, and that exact fact is mentioned in the article. But a 20D is what I happen to have, and someone actually requested that as a comparison back when the iPhone 4S was first announced.

I would have loved to have compared even more cameras, but I didn't have access to more equipment within a reasonable amount of time. I think that what we were able to examine, though, gives anyone thinking about ditching a dedicated compact camera the information to make an informed decision.

Sorry Chris, but those numbers and pictures from the 20D look way off. If you're going to do a proper comparison, you'll need to post more than just the shuttler/aperture/iso numbers. For instance, you didn't mention which lens you used, but from the settings posted guessing it's pretty slow. The lens you use makes a huge impact on your final image quality. There's also obvious sharpening filtering going with the iPhone and Samsung images that's not appearing on the Canon 20d. Again, since the camera settings and picture mode weren't mentioned, I can only guess. Posting the RAWs might be a good idea.

I have no doubt of the iPhone's ability to take great pictures, especially considering its small size. But if you want to do a true apples-to-apples image comparison, this isn't it. If you're open to suggestions, I'd be more than happy to recommend a proper setup for comparison.

edit: doh, you did mention the lens: EF-S 10-22. That explains the aperture settings.

Great, another iPhone puff piece! I know they generate mega hits, but come on Ars! Of course no one will leave their DSLR at home for serious photo taking, and yes the iPhone camera is in the top of three or so of phone cameras released to date. It's not even the best phone camera released, but worthy of a four page article to keep the hype/hit alive? Salut.

Oh. We're sorry, but RIM was still trying to determine which CEO was going to run the project.

Best camera's the one you have with you. I have a d40 and like 6 lenses but I also have an s95 for carrying around.

smart phone cameras are getting better and better and because of interconnectivity (the ability to tweet/facebook/whatever) your photos instantly appear on the web. Camera companies are going to lose and be relegated to the SLR market only if they don't wake up, but what can they do? Make phones? Make 3g SD cards like WiFi?

Um.... IMO they have to build in Bluetooth/Wifi capabilities into the cameras (hey, just one freaking small chip!), and make an iPhone/Android app to enable the camera to communicate with the phone. Also, GPS geotagging is a must.

For my personal shots lately, I've become a huge fan of the bokeh that you get from the high aperture shots of lenses like the 50/1.8 or the 32/2.0. To my knowledge, this is just somethins

Also, my knowledge in this area is actually somewhat lacking. I didn't think you could compare F stops between different lenses directly. That is, to my layman eyes, an F/4.5 in my lenses is still a larger opening than the lens of the iphone. Is that not the case?

The f number corresponds to how much light is actually hitting the sensor, regardless of physical size. The EF-S 10-22mm lens is physically huge compared to the lens in the iPhone 4s. But, then again, the physical sensor size is huge compared to the sensor in the iPhone. So an f/2.4 on the iPhone 4s means that a lot more light is hitting the sensor than an f/4.5 on the 20d with that lens.

So looking at the physical diameter of the aperture, you'd be right. It is much larger. But the sensor is also much larger, which means all that light is also spread out more.

Now, you're right, with a large aperture (small f number) lens on a large sensor size like a dSLR, you do get that beautiful bokeh that we all love. You'd have to get an extremely large aperture to get that effect on something with the sensor size of a camera phone.

I'm okay if that is the only DSLR you have, also I see it fit to what we compare here. But we got something very new here with perfect weight / image-quality ratio: EVIL cameras.

I used NEX5 with Rokkor 50 f1.8 and a CZ 35 f1.8, and even Nikon D7000 can't give me that much joy.If you can satisfy with slightly lower image quality compare to current prosumer DSLR lineup, a Pana GX1 and 20 f1.7 lens is even smaller and lighter, not much different to PnS (of course not the price). Once I go with EVIL, I don't use my phone to take photo much except snapshot my food to post on fb and I sold my DSLR.

If we take EVIL into this test, it will be the most round-up fighter, IMO.

PnS evolved too, checkout HX7v and HX9v lineup, they take surprisingly great photos in low light, oh, webcam evolved too, now I can have my image clear in HD at night with single light source from my LCD.

Now it only up to what called "real" digital camera. For me, only APS-C and larger sensor with acceptable noise at ISO 3200 can be called "real" digital camera (in next 5 years, not sure, my requirement will go up, like super high dynamic range for example). For most of consumer, the camera on iPhone is as "real" as one.

Aperture values correspond to the amount of light that falls on the sensor if i am not mistaken, so a smaller opening would be required for light to fall on a smaller sensor (though i could be wrong).

I know the 20D is an older slr but my rebel xt takes sharper images than that in a raw photo that has not been edited. There is no reason those images should be that blurry: is the af calibrated? Sensor clean? Lens clean? Just cant fathom an slr being that blurry, especially an slr before the great pixel density war that encompassed the 40D to 60D

Actually, I think the issue on those couple of photos is that the camera had to go down to 1/5s shutter speed, and hand-held that's just not easy to do. Especially without a lens with IS.

Good to see reviews like this come up. I love my HTC HD7, but I hate the camera. It's really not good. I love Windows Phone 7 as a whole, and when I decide to replace mine some time next year, I'm definitely taking its camera quality into account, something I never cared to do before.

I really like the article and hope to see more stuff like this. Photography seems to fall of in tech reporting unless it's a photography specific site.

Quote:

The best camera is the one that's with you

I know this is true since you would not get a single shot, but I have to disagree. I have an iphone 4 and use it in a snap when I don't have my DSLR. I loathe the images that come from it. Too grainy, high iso noise, horrible shutter lag, clumsy to focus, and take just crappy pictures unless it is a simple static object.

I understand the point of low light, no-flash comparisons, but just one with flash on would have been nice. I don't know how the flash is on other cameras, but on my GSII it seems to work very well, infinitely better than on the original GS. Leaving out flash altogether seems strange. Especially a nightclub/bar type photo, since that's exactly the kind of situation people use it in, mostly because the camera itself decides to unless you explicitly tell it not to.

Of course, my FujiFilm HS-10 does a very good job too, but it's stuck in that awkward spot between P&S and SLR, so I only carry it if I'm expecting to take some pictures.

not if you do anything with wildlife or difficult lighting. I'm not a pro by any stretch but the smart phone cameras just aren't up to what I do.

I think what the article is trying to say is, for most people going about their daily life, the iPhone 4s (and many other modern smartphones) have a pretty darn capable camera, and can replace a pocketable P&S for them.

It's a matter of the right tool for the job. And as the saying goes, the best camera is the one you actually have with you. If it's always in your pocket, it's always there.

Point noted and more importantly no one really notices if one has a camera phone out taking photos, while an actual PS&S would draw more attention to itself. Especially important when catching the latest police beatings. The other advantage above a regular camera is the smart apps one can bring to bear upon said photos..

Best camera's the one you have with you. I have a d40 and like 6 lenses but I also have an s95 for carrying around.

smart phone cameras are getting better and better and because of interconnectivity (the ability to tweet/facebook/whatever) your photos instantly appear on the web. Camera companies are going to lose and be relegated to the SLR market only if they don't wake up, but what can they do? Make phones? Make 3g SD cards like WiFi?

Um.... IMO they have to build in Bluetooth/Wifi capabilities into the cameras (hey, just one freaking small chip!), and make an iPhone/Android app to enable the camera to communicate with the phone. Also, GPS geotagging is a must.

Some newer cameras already do, and others can be outfitted with an accessory that does the job.

Despite the predictable griping in the comments, this is very useful review. One of my important use cases is backpacking/hiking. I have a decent SLR, but it rarely makes the trip because it is simply too much weight and too awkward on a long hike. I've had the 4S for a few weeks now and I've taken more pictures recently simply because I've had the camera. It's been fun to feel like I'm getting back into taking photos.

Those of us who are actually serious about or just enjoy photography bring our cameras to the "pub". I generally have the camera, the 35mm / f2.4 mounted, and the battery grip with me. If there's a band playing and I want to mess around with non-natural lighting, I'll bring the metz 60.

Just because the majority of the world is so bad at handling their booze that they need to leave everything important they own at home before going out (except their car keys, I've noticed), doesn't mean everyone is like that.